single core vs dual core
- Thread starter 123Justin
- Start date
- Status
Kitire said:Yeah, but what if the newer games that utilize dual cores suck... and i want to play CSS or BF2?. I know for a fact that Morrowind won't suck and it will use both cores, but it is all singleplayer =/.
yea i was also thinking the same, i really like games like source and bf2 but they dont take advantage of dual core. unless if they make bf3 or half life 3 using dual core then ther will be a good reason to buy dual core.
*sigh*
You didn't read the link did you please read it so you know why running dual core will even help with running single threaded games. Also Morrowind has been out for 6 years long before people could even dream about dual. As for newer games utilizing dual cores sucking I'd like to ask you if you would rather sit down and play "jungle" for the NES or "Halo 3" for whatever system it is to be released on. Future = better.
You didn't read the link did you please read it so you know why running dual core will even help with running single threaded games. Also Morrowind has been out for 6 years long before people could even dream about dual. As for newer games utilizing dual cores sucking I'd like to ask you if you would rather sit down and play "jungle" for the NES or "Halo 3" for whatever system it is to be released on. Future = better.
Well... Valve is crazy. So they might update the Source engine to run with dual core systems. They're like the #1 innovative gaming company right now because they are involved in so many new technologies. They are also the flag company for HDR. So if it's possible, then I don't see why they won't do it. They made HL2 and CSS 64-bit recently.
Tyler1989 said:
Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.
No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.
For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.
EDIT: My 2000th post
Flanker said:Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.
No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.
For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.
ur saying the dual core will only be good for 6-8 months?
Flanker said:Thats what they said about the Netburst architecture and look where that got em.
No no, Dual Core is definately better than single core, especially if you're comparing the same speed (in single-threaded processes, core-core latency still gives the single core the edge). But its also definately pricier than a single-core. The cheapest Dual Core out right now is $321. A person on a $700 budget won't be going for a Dual Core. A comparable single core on the other hand is $160, half the price.
For something that won't help you for another 6-8 months, its hardly worth twice the price.
EDIT: My 2000th post
Gratz, and i am on a 750$ budget getting the x2 3800
. 123Justin said:
No, he meant it won't give you an advantage for another 6-8 months.. Neanderthal.
--- Oh yeah, and i meant "oblivion", not morrowind :0, always get them mixed up...
- Status
